2306060400Tu A SIMULACRUM?
It amazes me that all these so called woke leftist thinking they’re enlightened escapees from religion, when in reality they’re only trading one religion for another very bad one – a ‘simulacrum’ of the former from whence they escape.
What you actually have with these so called woke is nothing more than the same old heathen pharisees still at work trying to divert you from the one and only true path to GOD – that being through HIS son Jesus Christ.
The trinity is nothing more than heathenism trying to get you to return a pantheon of gods and away from the singular monotheistic GOD of the Bible. Can you not be as one in unison with others? But when you see the imposition of the Trinity for the pantheon that it is you’ll also see these woke modern day pharisees as your detractors just as they were Jesus’s.
PS1. These so called woke hunger for a religion that socialism is more than happy to supply them with their socialist ‘simulacrum’ of religion for their devotion. You are dealing with a fake false religion.
PS2. These people sincerely believe what they do is righteous just as Jews who had The Christ executed believed what they were doing was righteous.
PS3. How many times do these socialists get to claim that what failed was because it wasn’t real communism – NOT THAT!
PS4. Socialist Communism is NEVER ENDING complaining until the right people are in power.
Your contest is with heathenism rather than its woke ministers of evil.
Posted by: New Discourses ~ 1 month ago ~ 82K views ~ 130K subscribers
“The Negation of the Real | James Lindsay”
#LETSGOBRANDON ~ A Commun-ist (whether he’s capable of realizing it or not?).
#MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) an existentialist (individualist) philosophy of life.
#ONLY PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE – STICKS & STONES DON’T, NOT EVEN GUNS KILL PEOPLE
simulacrum (noun) · simulacra (plural noun) · simulacrums (plural noun)
an image or representation of someone or something:
"a small-scale simulacrum of a skyscraper"
SIMILAR: likeness, painting, drawing, picture, portrait, illustration, sketch, diagram, artist's, impression, image, model, figure, figurine, statue, statuette, bust, head, effigy, icon, reproduction.
"a bland simulacrum of American soul music"
late 16th century: from Latin, from simulare (see simulate).
Data from Oxford Languages
hermetic (adjective) · Hermetic (adjective)
"a hermetic seal that ensures perfect waterproofing"
SIMILAR: airtight, tight, sealed, shut, watertight, waterproof.
"a hermetic society"
"some saw in the Hermetic texts an anticipation of Christianity"
"obscure and hermetic poems"
mid 17th century (in hermetic): from modern Latin hermeticus, from Hermes, identified with Thoth, regarded as the founder of alchemy and astrology.
Data from Oxford Languages
sqeptiq is right, the postmodern idea that there are an infinite number of possible narratives while seemingly true is misleading. It's true of abstract reality to some extent but there is an internal contradiction. That contradiction arises out of the naturalistic heritage of postmodernism. As far as physicists know nothing comes from nothing. From the naturalistic perspective the universe is a complex chain of causes and effects which leads to the deterministic worldview that postmodernists apply when they want to argue against individual responsibility. When they find something objectionable in society however they adopt a willful position. The two positions are incompatible leading to cognitive dissonance. There brains fry as sqeptiq puts it.
The problem that anyone arguing against the postmodernist position has is that there is no argument from the natural philosophy perspective that counters determinism. So you get the popularist position of "believe in science" as a counter to any argument that requires freewill. Whatever the descendants of postmodernism propose must be right because from a naturalistic perspective it was predetermined. It's why they feel free to make history conform to their ideology. If historical data conflicts with their argument then something is wrong with the data not the ideology. The ideology in their minds is "scientific".
Communists and socialists have a long history of "bad" science. It turns out they are not very good natural philosophers. Science relies on "genius" and genius should not be confused with intelligence. High intelligence is a necessary but insufficient condition for genius. Try and get a postmodernist to explain genius and they will stumble. Another characteristic of genius besides high intelligence is imagination. The apparent ability to create something from nothing. While this ability of genius appears magical, that is something of an illusion. Genius is dependent on many generations of evolved thinking tools and observations. The postmodernist however never stops to think why something like religion evolved the way it did, why almost every successful civilization shares some moral prerogatives. If they did consider the evolution of morality more carefully they would then be forced to question their own moral prerogatives and their evolution. That is why they turn to power as the basis of social interaction.
The problem with power as the basis for social organization is that successful civilizations are based more on voluntary cooperation than power. From that arises another contradiction in postmodernism, who has the freewill to determine what form that cooperation takes from a deterministic perspective. It turns out that they have no justification for being authoritarian but insist on social engineering that requires authoritarianism. More cognitive dissonance is the result. That is why you see the anti-fascists acting like fascists but their brains are so "fried" they do not have any consciousness of the contradictions in their actions. As you would expect they do not have the imagination necessary for genius. In fact they hate genius because it cannot be authoritarian.
Communism and socialism claim to be scientific but at best it is very weak science. It tries to apply science in its social engineering but lacking genius or imagination it almost always fails. It turns out that the philosophical roots of communism are naturalism divorced from "good" science. Science is just an excuse for doing "what comes naturally". An excuse to tear down civilization that they find too restrictive. An excuse for the immorality of natural behavior.